US Edexcel Government And Politics Essay Plans Flashcards
Evaluate the view that the US is no longer federal today
Intro: federalism is where power and sovereignty is shared between state and federal government
For: the US is no longer Federal Today.
Under recent President, there have also have been many developments and polices which have seen areas of policy shared between states and federal governent increasingly be driven by federal government. The period can be defined as zigzag federalism, where the federal government role has expanded in some areas and states have been given control over others. Eg. Bush no child left behind act introduced major changes to education policy, with federal governent increasing their power to try and create a uniform national standard, despite education being traditionally controlled by states. Bush mandated that states test children annually with a uniform national test. This shows states power are in the government hands.
Against: the US remains federal today.
States retain signifance control in certain policies. Eg 38 states have legalised the medical use of marijuana . California have legalised the medical use of marijuna. This started with Obama administration that decided to allow these legislation, thinking states would be a useful laboratory to test effectiveness of policies. marijuana remains illegal under federal law but some states have enacted legislation to use for medical
For:
The constitution does not protect federalism properly. this is due to article 1 section 8 of the constitution which is the elastic clause of the constitution that give federal governent implied powers that allows them to regulate commerce with foreign state. This can be seen as stretching the federal power beyond what the founding father envisaged.
The constitution has also been ammend to give more power to federal govenrnt. Eg the 16th amendment gives federal governent the power to levy income tax.
Against:
It can be argued that federalism is protected by the constitution due to the 10th amendment, which states that all power not delegated to federal government are reserved to the state and people. This gives states power over important areas of policy including regulating local commerce. Eg states have the power to establish their local government and regulate elections. If federal government seeks to overstep their powers in their constitution, courts often step into protect state power. Eg this can be seen in Us v Lopez case. This struck down the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990 (GFSZA) as it was outside of Congress’s power to regulate interstate commerce. This shows there are clear limits to Congress implied powers and federalism being upheld
For:
Quarter of state income come from federal governent. This therefore allows government to control state policy to some degree, particularly through categorical grants which specify how money should be spent. Eg this can be seen in Obama care act which required to expand Medicaid provision or lose there federal funding.
Against:
Majority of money is raised through states from local tax. States can be given block grants allows them full control on how the money in spent. These grants are popular among republicans are they respect autonomy.
Evaluate the view that the entrenched and codified nature and of the US CONSTITITION has more advantages than disadvantages?
For: very difficult to ammend which mean key principles are well protected. The amendment process guarantees this through super majority. 2/3 of the vote is needed and also 3/4 of the state. Intentionally used by founding fathers to protect from tyranny. The key principles include seperstion of power, checks and balances and limited govenment. The bill of rights protect people people and gives them protection. Eg fist amendment guaranteed people freedom of speech
Against :
It’s to to rigid which has led to outdated provisions eg gun laws which is the 2nd amendment was created to protect the us population from tyranny governent. It makes no sense in the 21st century as technology advancement Us military would easily defeat any uprising . Therefore the failure to amend this had led to countless killings and not what the founding fathers envisaged.
For: judicial reviews enable the constitution to be flexible and evolve with a changing society and in response to political circumstances due to the vagueness. Eg the roe v wade case legalised abortion by deciding that women have rights to an abortion under the right privacy derived from the 14 amendment.
Against:may give judges excessive powers. It is the job of Supreme Court job to implement the constitution and therefore interpret it how they wish. This allows judges to make huge changes in political life. Eg the dobb v Jackson case reinterpreted the 14 amendment to remove the right of abortion. (Legislate from the bench)
Evaluate the view that Congress fulfills its legislative function effectively.
Against: it does not.
It can be argued that Congress dosnt fulfill its legislative functions effectively as there is a high rate of legislative failure. There is a built in negative bias due partisan nature . The likehood of bills passing is low with 10,000 bills being introduced in each Congress however only a few hundred are passed. Eg in the 117th Congress just 365 prices of legislation was was enacted which is around 2% of the bill introduced. Can be argued standing committees have significant powers.
For: it does fulfill there functions.
Multiple veto point means legislation are thought through so prevent tyranny. There are checks on senate like cloture motions that stop senators from filler-busting. Standing commitees play an important role in this. There are 16 standing committees in senate and 20 in house of representatives.These committees chose what bill to amend or reject. There are diffrent committees for diffent areas of policy, including homeland security and many more. These members usually have specialist knowledge. This ensure effective scrutiny before being taken to vote in the chambers.
Against:
It can be argued that Congress does not fulfill its legislative function due to divided government. As rather than forcing parties to work together and cooperate, it leads to gridlock and failure to pass important key issues. Eg when trump/ Obama were president they failed to pass legislation due to Congress being ran by their opposing party. Eg under Obama, Congress failed l to pass the DREAM act, which could have provided a pathway for immigrants
For: despite this Congress can still perform its legislative function under divided government. Eg Congress was able to pass important bipartisan legislation despite the partisan nature. Eg the CARES act was passed under divided goverment in March 2020
Evaluate the view that Congress is effective at representing the electorate.
For: it can be argued that Congress is highly effective in representing electorate, as senators and congresspeople place a lot of empathise on representing the local interest of their district. They can do this by pork barreling. They spend allot of times in their constituency, including holding regular town hall meetings which highlight a parochialism. Congresspeople and senators seek to represent the interests of their constituency in Congress by voting in a way that their district support. This sometimes means voting against the party line. Eg democrat joe machin sometimes voted for republicans due to him representing west Virgina which supported trump.
Against: it can be argued that members of congress fixation on representing local interest and getting re-elected impaired their ability to represent national interest as they focus to much on pork barreling. This leads to huge unnecessary spending that undermine the effective governance and representation of a country as a whole.
Against: does not perform there funtion.
Congress is far more white , male, straight and old than the US Population. In 118th Congress Just 28% of all members in Congress are women compared to 51% of the US population. This can be seen as unrepresentative as there views are less likely understood
For: descriptive representations have improved. The 118 th Congress has 137 no white members compared to just 86 non white members compared to 10years ago
Evaluate the view that Congress has effectively holds the president to account?
For: can hold president to account though power of oversight.
Committees play a big role and in overidghting executive branch. Most member of committees are specialised in that area of policy. This result in very detailed scrutiny of presidency which keeps the president in line as if they breach the constitution law they will be exposed. Eg the senate watergate gate commitee investigated the party gate scandal.
Against: due to partisan nature it can innefective and provide little scrutiny. Under divided goverment oversight is less effective as Congress is driven by party political point scoring whilst under unified goverment there is limited oversight.
For:
It can be argued that Congress is highly effective in holding president to account in domestic policy. This is because Congress has control over the legislative process and power of the purse. This result in the president being imperilled as they have a lot of constraints in there ability to influence domestic policy. Furthermore power of the purse mention in article 1 section 8 in the constitution means all money spent by the president has to be agreed by Congress. This is signifant as Congress can limit the ability of President to influence policy . Eg in 2019 there was a federal shutdown due trump not being able to agree with the appropriation bill with his Mexico wall
Against:
Congress can bypass through executive orders which are decisions made by President which are given to federal officials instructions to take action. They don’t require congress approval.
Eg trump signed 220 executive orders when President
Evaluate the view that the most import a factor influencing how senators/ congresspeople vote in Congress is public opinion in their consistency.
For: public opinion in the constituency is the most important factor.
It can be argued that public opinion within a senator/congressperson constituency is the most important factor in determining how they vote in Congress, as it’s a key determinant of whether they will win next election.
If they don’t take into account of public opinion they may run the risk of not being elected. The influence of constituency opinion can be seen in the fact that congresspeople or senate. Sometimes votes against their party line. Eg democrats senator joe Manchin has often voted with the republicans due to the fact that his constituency is West Virginia which supported trump in both 2016 and 2020. he was sucessfully re-elected in 2018. majoirty of Manchin’s voters support Trump, if he was more left wing an impeded
the Republicans’ policy aims, it would be highly unlikely he would be reelected as a
Democrat.
Against:(it’s not important) party is important.
It can be argued that constituency opinion isn’t important factor influencing how representative vote in Congress, as pressure to vote along party lines can seen as more important. There is high pressure from the party leadership to vote within the view of majority of the party, including through majority and minority whips which try to keep the party in line.The discipline is still weaker compared the uk but there still some there.
Against:
It can be argued that public opinion is not important factor, instead interest groups are groups are the biggest factor as they have the ability to pressure them to vote in a way that aligns with their interests. Interest groups can influence members is through donating to their election campaigns throuh PACS. Representatives are therefore likely to vote in line with their priorities in order to secure these campaign contributions. Eg NRA has massive budget for lobbying and raises over $250 million a year. They around 700,000 in electoral campaign in 2018
For: (public opinion in the constituency is the most important factor). Campaign finance certainly has influence over electoral outcome, but it’s arguably doesn’t determine electoral outcome as much as voters perception of a representatives voting record does. As result senator and Congress people are unlikely to vote In line with a intrest group if it would be unpopular in their constituent.For example, Senator Joe Manchin has consistently opposed legislation that might
adversely affect the coal industry due to the importance of coal mining to his West Virginia
constituency
Evaluate the view that President is sble to dominate foreign policy.
For: it can be argued that the president is able to dominate foreign policy because they are given signifant powers to direct nation policy in the constitution. Article 2 section 2 of the constitution gives President the power to of commander of chief of arm. Thus grant him power of military forces allowing him to make key decisions regarding military. Eg deploying troops. An example of this power in action is Biden decision to withdraw the US troops from Afghanistan in 2021, making the end of American longest war
Against:
Congress has the highly important power to declare war which is an enumerated power states in article 1, section 8 of the constitution. This authority allows Congress to decide whether the United state will engage with warfare. It act as a check on the president power as commander in chief, ensuring that decision to go to war is collective
Evaluate the view that’s a president popularity is the most important factor determining their power
For:
Can be argued that popularity is the most important factor as President needs the backing of their party to push through legislation, particularly in polarised political environment. High approval rating provide a President with increase his/her political capital enabling them greater power to persuade Congress. Bush following the 9/11 attack was very popular due to way he handle it. this therfore meant he could pass important legislation. furthermore Obama, for example, had very high approval ratings during his early years and a
strong electoral mandate to implement healthcare reforms. As a result, he was able
to convince Democrats in Congress to pass the Affordable Care Act despite fierce
opposition from Republicans.
Against:
On the other hand it can be argued that power is dependent on whether governent is unified or divided in Congress. The importance of unified/ divided govenment has increased as partisanship and polarisation in US POLITCIs have to. Under divided governent it make it harder for president to pursue his agenda, with little compromise between parties. In unified governent, President is better able to pursue their legislative agenda.
Against:
It can be argued that the president power of persuasion is a more significant factor than their popularity. Their ability to corporate with members of Congress and persuade them so support their policy is central to whether they achieve their legislative priorities. There are range of different tactics and methods of persuasion the president can do. Eg like offering perks like key positions to committees. The bully pulpit allows President to directly appeal to the American people which shapes political narratives and sways legislative outcomes.
For:
It can be argued that popularity is more important factor is key to whether whether is key to whether they are able to effectively prusuade congress. This is because members of Congress are only going to be incentivised to be associated with president agenda if they are popular
Evaluate the view that the president informal powers are more significant than their formal powers.
Intro:
Formal powers are powers explicitly stated in the constitution
Informal are power not stated in the constitution
For: it can be argued the informal powers of the president are more powerfull than formal powers. Some of them informal powers allow them to bypass Congress. A key power is executive order, which are decisions made by the president which give federal officials instruction to take certain action. Don’t need Congress approval . Eg trump signed 220 executive order when President. Trump Muslim ban on 7 countries
Against: can be argued formal powers are more signifant than informal powers, as it’s stated in the the US sovereign institution which gives the power strong legal backing. A key power is recommend or propose legislation which is stated in the state of union adress. Eg Obama used his 2010 state of union adress to focus on passing Obama care act.
For: informal powers significant
The President has the ability to dominate foreign policy.
Foreign policy has been stretched beyond the constitution in relation to military force, with President deploying military forces. Another key informal power is executive agreements. These agreements enable President to engage in international diplomacy and create binding agreements with other nations without being ratified by 2/3 of senate.
Against:
Can be argued that formal powers are more important factor in enabling the president to dominate foreign policy. They set the president up to be the head of state and central decision maker in foreign policy.
Article 2 section 2 of the constitution gives president power of being commander of chief of the army.
This role grant President supreme command over military forces, allowing them to make decisions on military.
Evaluate the view that measure to promote racial equality in the US have been effective.
For: (representation)
it can be argued that measure to promote social racial equality in terms of descriptive representation as both have improved in 21st century. In this current time Congress has been its most ethically diverse in history with number of non member doubling since the 108th Congress to 67 to 137
Against: Congress is still unrepresentative as there are more white Americans in Congress than black African Americans. President Obama is the only non-white President in history and Kamala Harris is the
only non-white Vice President in history, whilst there are currently just 3 non-white state
governors in the US. Congress failed to promote racial equality in the US, as it results in a failure to represent minority voters in policy. Eg Congress failed to pass George Floyd justice in policing act due to republican opposition.
For:(Laws passed by congress’s)
It can be argued that the measure to promote racial equality in the US have been effective as Congress has passed laws that have upheld African American rights. Eg the 1965 voting act which banned black people doing test when voting. As result it increased voter registration and participation among African Americans, particularly the south. YOU CAN TALK ABOUT AFFEIRMATIVE ACTIONS
Against:
On the other hand it can be argued that Congress is not effective. Some key peice of legislation have seemed to be undermined by Supreme Court rulings. Congress has failed to address this in the 21st century as seen as failure to pass immigration reform or any legislation proposed to address the racism raised by Black Lives Matter movement. Can be argued that the voting rights act 1965 which had been working effectively to combat discrimination against voting was undermined by the Supreme Court decision in the Shelby county v holder case which removed key provisions. It meant to federal oversight wasn’t needed when changing voting laws. As result it meant states could change the laws to make it harder for black people to vote. Congress also failed to pass the DREAM act under Obama
Evaluate the view that Supreme Court is a political rather than a judicial review.
For :
It can be argued that the practices of judicial activism in the Us where judges may use their platform to enhance their powers and promote social desirable ends shows that the court is politicised. This activism is characterised by broad interpretation, overturning key precedent and also stretching the constitution to expand rights. It can be argued that in recent years the liberal activism has increased . Eg the roe v wade case is an example of loose interpretation that expanded women rights on abortion and allowed it to occur. It was derived in 14th amendment because it guaranteed freedom of personal choice.
Against:
Can be argued that Supreme Court is a judicial institution as Supreme Court has maintained it judicial integrity and refrained from political activism. the Roberts Court, despite its conservative leaning, has demonstrated a balanced
approach in several landmark cases
Eg. The obergefell vs hodges, which legalised same sex marriage and protected people rights. This case can be argued to show the Supreme Court isn’t politicised as it practices judicial restraint and simply upholds the rule of law.
For:
Can be argued the appoinent process has become increasingly political and influenced by partisan nature rather than judicial qualifications. This can be seen in the fact the primary consideration for president when appointing Supreme Court is whether they believe in President saying. Eg Obama only nominated Elena kegan as he had a liberal view.
Against:
The appoinent process is judicial rather than political because it guarantees judicial integrity and legal qualifications of nominees. Eg they go through ABA and senate ratification. they undergo
extensive questioning on various legal and constitutional matters. eg the appoinment of amy cony barret involved comprehensives reviews on their background.
Evaluate civil liberties and rights haven’t been effectively protected In the US.
Into:
Define civil liberty
Define civil rights: rights campaigned by suppressed minority groups like Africans Americans and gay people
Against: Can be argued that rights have been protected by judges performing judicial activism and therefore promoting desirable social ends. Judicial reviews that take the living interpretation approach
Can be seen as a sign of civil liberties and right been uphold. Eg brown v border and ROE g wade.
For:
Not protected as key protections have been overturned. Eg dobbs v Jackson case overturned roe v wade ruling. This is signifant as it removed 5 years of established legal precedent. The decision was rooted in an organist approach which removed the right to abortion.
Against:
Congress have passed policies that safeguarded American rights.
Eg 1965 voting act which meant black people weren’t required to do test. This overall reduce barriers
For: can be argued civil liberties and rights are not protected due to Congress failing to effectively safeguard these rights. Eg the Shelby v holder case struck down key provision of the 1965 voting act. Thsi removed the requirement for states with a history of racial discrimination of voting to require federal approval before changing voting laws. This made it easier for many republican states to implement voting procedures that would be harder for black Americans like photo id.
Do primaries and caucuses(presedential election process) need to be reformed?
No- it may “weed out” weaker candiantes. Eg Rick Perry, oops moment in 2012. He couldn’t remember his third agency .
No- gives people with less political experience chance. Eg Donald trump in 2016 ran for president without previous experience
Yes- the system is seen as weak and flawed as the as the assumption to win the win the invisible primaries is raise the most the most. This is not the case for Clinton in 2016 and she raise way more money than trump but he still won
Yes- Incumbency are advantaged. Eg in 2012 Obama raised way more money than Romney
Should the electoral college be reformed?
Yes- it’s outdated. Voters and now more educated. The fact that winner of the presidential election has to win the most vote and not the most overall vote undermines democracy. Eg in 2016 trump won due to winning the electoral college vote
No- it may prevent extreme candidates that may destroy democracy so electors may be helpful.
Yes- a problem of faithless electors that dont vote for the candidates for the US President of the vice president for whom the elector has been pledged to vote
No- no demand for the reform due the process. Requires supermajority of …. 2/3
Evaluate the view that campaign finance requires reform.
Introduction:
Campaign financing refers to the funding of politcal campaigns with the intent of influencing elections.
For:
One key argument that campaign finance requires reform is that it undermines democracy because wealth individuals and special interest groups can exert disproportionate influence on the political process.superpacs are able to spend unlined amount of money on behalf of their candidate due to the citizens united FEC case that overturned McCain foreign gold reform act . Super PACs allow billionaires to pour unlimited amounts into campaigns, drowning out the voices of ordinary Americans .Greater regulation could limit the size of contribution from wealth donors and therefore provide a level playing field. NRA spent…..
Against:
It can be argued that campaign finance does not a reform as by doing so would limit freedom of speech under the first amendment of the bill of rights. Campaign spending are seen as a form of political expression protected by the first amendment.
The citizens v FEC(2010) decision is an example that supports this view. This rule out corporate funding could not be limited. As a result it struck down the McCain feingold act.
For:
A final key argument in favour of reforming campaign finance is that it disadvantages candiantes that don’t have access to wealth donors or large pac which therefore limits the diversity of veiwpoints available for voters. Eg during 2012 re election Obama was able to exploit his incumbency. He was able to raise 700mil which out in fundraised his challenger Romney significantly.
Against:
Campaign finance dosnt need a reform as it’s overstated. In recent years there has been candiantes that have spent less but won elections. This may suggest that financial resources isn’t the only important factor. Eg in 2016 Clinton spent way more money than trump but he still won the election
